Although this is spoken of at times and some liberals seem to be promoting such, I do find it ironic that those who support socialism do not support it unless it is under leadership they deem worthy.

Too many times people have claimed Trump wants to be a dictator. Those who make such a claim need to think about the call from the left to have someone be a dictator. Maybe the right should say --- ok... Starting today with the leadership in place we will be a socialist country.

The absurdity of such for right or left to even wish for such. Though I do not see the right calling for such a system.

Do we have a rise in ignorant left politicians who are not being held in check by the left who do not support socialism? There is a lot of quiet on this fro the left in opposition.

Actually, many of us in the South (and some in the North) were brought up in a socialist system. My mother grew up in a company town. The mill owned the housing, the utilities, the recreation center, gave stipends to support the Baptist and Methodist churches, provided a company doctor and clinic for those who worked in the mill, paid in scrip that was only good at the company stores, built the schools and hired the teachers and administration, and assigned where you could live based on your position in the company. It's funny how socialism becomes so evil when it was the way of life for lots of Americans in the 19th and up until about 1960 in the 20th century. Where did we get the idea that socialism in America was a communist plot?

"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

The idea that the "left" is calling for the US to become socialist is a scare tactic. Anything that government might propose in the way of regulation, or to prevent business from taking advantage of people, or to provide equal opportunity is labelled as a "socialist plot" by the right and its extremist media propagandists.

There's a measure of socialism that would be good for all of us. I can illustrate the difference between a utility company operating for profit, charging 14 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity even though there are a dozen companies competing for the ability to sell it to you and there is competition in where the company buys it, and the 4.5 cents I paid in Pennsylvania in a county-owned cooperative that levied a tax of about $140 per year for the service. Combined, electricity cost about two thirds less under the "socialized" cooperative than it did in the for-profit market and the service was better when there was a problem. I'm 100% in favor of socialized medicine. Except for the British, the countries that have it pay half or less for medical care and coverage than Americans do and in most cases, they have better care and are more cutting edge in research.

But the thought of a segment of the partisan political divide in this country advocating for us to become socialist is nothing more than partisan political talk at its worst.

Sandy wrote:The idea that the "left" is calling for the US to become socialist is a scare tactic. Anything that government might propose in the way of regulation, or to prevent business from taking advantage of people, or to provide equal opportunity is labelled as a "socialist plot" by the right and its extremist media propagandists.

There's a measure of socialism that would be good for all of us. I can illustrate the difference between a utility company operating for profit, charging 14 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity even though there are a dozen companies competing for the ability to sell it to you and there is competition in where the company buys it, and the 4.5 cents I paid in Pennsylvania in a county-owned cooperative that levied a tax of about $140 per year for the service. Combined, electricity cost about two thirds less under the "socialized" cooperative than it did in the for-profit market and the service was better when there was a problem. I'm 100% in favor of socialized medicine. Except for the British, the countries that have it pay half or less for medical care and coverage than Americans do and in most cases, they have better care and are more cutting edge in research.

But the thought of a segment of the partisan political divide in this country advocating for us to become socialist is nothing more than partisan political talk at its worst.

It is the left that is embracing socialism and speaking of its merits (whatever they may be).

When I was in Cuba, they spoke of their universal health care provided by the socialist government... Easily defined... as long as you are healthy you are covered. They spoke of the free benefits talked about but never seen. They show how they wait for months just to get lightbulbs replaced in their homes. Socialism sounds good but I still do not see where it works. If you know of a place, please show us.

All countries are socialistic to a degree. And the results vary from bad (e.g. Venezuela, the USSR) to good (Scandinavian countries). The difference is honest and back-checked leadership. There is no single definition of what is meant by socialism but key is what range of functions the government does and their tax rates. Apparently not all people get grumpy if they are taxed highly (e.g 50%) if their government provides for health care, old-age care, unemployment insurance, jobs when needed, child care, college tuition....

As happens every year, the happiest countries are among the most socialistic.

Dave Roberts wrote:Actually, many of us in the South (and some in the North) were brought up in a socialist system. My mother grew up in a company town. The mill owned the housing, the utilities, the recreation center, gave stipends to support the Baptist and Methodist churches, provided a company doctor and clinic for those who worked in the mill, paid in scrip that was only good at the company stores, built the schools and hired the teachers and administration, and assigned where you could live based on your position in the company. It's funny how socialism becomes so evil when it was the way of life for lots of Americans in the 19th and up until about 1960 in the 20th century. Where did we get the idea that socialism in America was a communist plot?

The problem is that the sort of socialism some of us would like to see now wouldn't provide the grossly inflated incomes to the shareholders because the shareholders would be the people. Like the difference between bouncing a check at the Credit Union and bouncing one at a commercial bank. $28 (and a free way of avoiding that if you have a savings account that can cover it) vs. $36 and no help covering it.

"Socialism" is a broad term. Where does it work? It works well in most of the European Union. There are varying degrees of socialism in most of Europe and a lot of the economic and personal prosperity has to do with the country's overall historical economic health, but Europeans enjoy a lot of public benefits as a result of their socialist economics. It also seems to work well in Israel, which also has a lot of smaller community collectives in addition to its national economy.